I read this article with interest this morning. While this court case is, in my opinion, more about divorce than homeschool, the precedence it sets is disturbing to me. I’d love to hear how you weigh in on the matter. I really have no opinion about homeschooling myself. I’ve seen it done well and I’ve seen it done in ignorance but we can say the same about traditional school.
We sent our children to a private religious school and found that by the third grade they were 1.5 years behind in their learning. Basically the fees we paid were to ensure that our kids were at the right school for social reasons. Thankfully, with public school and special tutoring we were able to get them back on track and now they are scoring well above their grade level. A good education and a bad one can happen anywhere.
I have never considered homeschool simply because I am not patient, nor do I feel equipped or that I have a home set up for homeschooling. My kids probably are breathing a sigh of relief for that. I admire parents who can do this for their child. All this being said, I do have serious doubts about the un-school group. Maybe because I just don’t get it.
Pastor Susan 
this court case is a bad call i think… given that she was already homeschooled before the divorce, and is doing well. not only for the bad reason, but also i seriously doubt it will be effective. the extreme mom is gonna have a major influence on a 10 year old either way.. and the kid will probably do more of her own questioning in later teen years either way as well.
there is another bad one where child services had gotten an abuse report, found nothing, and demanded the kids be in school so teachers would see if they had bruises etc and court agreed. as if teachers catch everything and have nothing else to focus on.
i always thought i would want to homeschool…. until about the time kiddo was born. as bad as our personalities clash, i think id go insane.
unschool makes sense.. as long as you dont have very high hopes for your kid. if you want them to be a stay at home mom, then yes, they can learn all they need from life and just following their interests to learn more about things they like. but they arent going to survive higher education without having learned a lot of stuff they dont like and which has no clear use in daily life… or many other careers. and a lot of useful stuff builds on stuff that didnt seem all that useful at the time.
Like anything else, it’s hard to categorize a subject like this based on the evidence of “good versus bad” because it depends on those giving the education and those receiving it.
I’ve seen extremes ( was raised Seventh Day Adventist) and balanced methods work and turn into disasters. I’ve watched as people with good intentions and bad methods destroyed all the good they intended by being bullheaded and ignorant. I’ve seen intelligent people get caught up in fads to the point of ignoring commonsense.
I’ve seen mothers and fathers who lacked a gift in scholastics themselves educate their children (and themselves in the process) far beyond their counterparts in any school system.
The only difference is love, boundaries and a willingness to be part of community of human race. Isolation breeds stupidity; exposure to life creates thought and wisdom. Both of these can be and have been done in all the scenarios mentioned and some which I’m ignorant of, but it has to do with the character, beliefs and attitudes of those involved.
I read the article and in a word it stinks. I don’t know what the judge was thinking. His responsibility began and ended in whether or not the child was receiving a good education. She excelled, so why did he go further?
What was the counselor trying to prove? Does anyone know of any child or teen who does not get upset, if the person they are speaking with does not pay attention to them? If teachers did this, they would soon have children not paying attention to them. Folks of all ages get upset with people who ignore them. What was this counselor thinking? I have to wonder if the article is telling the whole story, because, as it is, it shows only the idiocy of the counselor and his or her ineptness for the responsibility for which he or she was charged.
My wife and I (90% my wife and 10% me) homeschooled our two daughters. Both went on to college and both were on the dean’s list, so their education did not suffer in the least by having to be schooled by two adults without a teacher’s degree. We hired a teacher to come into our home and tutor our girls in German. Through the tutor our girls befriended the daughter of an acquaintance of hers in Germany. They have been to Germany as guests of their pen pal and she and her friends and brother and sister-in-law have been guests in our home.
Bottom line, this judge, unless the article is not informing us of the real truth, ought to inform himself of where his authority begins and ends. It is not the responsibility of the state to choose our faith, if the judge thinks this is best, he might be better suited for the culture in China. It is to be hoped, if he is elected to office, his term will end in due time. As for the counselor, I would hope he or she also would find more suitable employment, preferably away from children.
If you get the idea that I am upset over this article, then I have accurately portrayed my emotions in the writing of this reply. I read it a few days ago, but didn’t comment. I was so angry. However, I cannot get it out of my mind and had to at least put in my two cents here—for what it is worth.
I completely agree with you that they missed the point by the ruling they gave. If they were saying that the mom had too much influence well, mom’s do. This is why divorce is hard because suddenly the rules of the game change.
I am not comfortable at all, at a precedence being set over a divorce. It’s apples and oranges.